If the NBA took away the 3 point line.....

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

For at least 10 years after the 3 pointer was introduced, it was considered a gimmick.
They had it. They didn't particularly value it.

so that means by 1989, teams should have learned to value them. That was 28 years ago now. No reason to ignore it's value that long.

 

[Remote]

so that means by 1989, teams should have learned to value them. That was 28 years ago now. No reason to ignore it's value that long.

Things take time.

It took baseball almost 50 years to recognize the value of the home run.
It took football almost 50 years to recognize the value of the forward pass.

In comparison, basketball came along rather quickly.

 

[No..Money..Mo..Problems]

No they wouldn't ...you would still have to guard the Steph & Klays of the game.

I dunno if grizz would have 3 titles but those 3s add up. No 3 point line and the grizz with a 1- 2 years younger zbo could beat the warriors.

 

[Bay Area]

Nobody's saying he's not great his team wouldn't be as dominate as they are now without the 3 point line. Defenders are always off balance or out of position trying to over play the 3 which gives curry space to work with when he hesitates and drives the ball. Without the element of giving up a extra point the defender wouldn't care how many perimeter shots Curry takes cuz at 45% they ain't beating you.

This truly is an intriguing topic. The Warriors are one of the best defensive teams in the league and they are long (pause). They also wouldn't magically stop being the best passing team in the league.

I dissed Klay earlier in this thread but if there were no 3 point shot he would master his turn around jumper which is already lethal.

Shaun Livingston game would be invaluable.

Durant would still be a beast.

shyt even David West would have more value at his old age.

The Warriors wouldn't be as dominant as today but they would still be contenders in my opinion.

 

[FaTaL]

Floor spacing would be terrible

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Things take time.

It took baseball almost 50 years to recognize the value of the home run.
It took football almost 50 years to recognize the value of the forward pass.

In comparison, basketball came along rather quickly.

Well, compared to those two I guess so . Baseball is notoriously stuck in it's ways though. They only recently joined the 20th century and added replay

 

[No..Money..Mo..Problems]

This truly is an intriguing topic. The Warriors are one of the best defensive teams in the league and they are long (pause). They also wouldn't magically stop being the best passing team in the league.

I dissed Klay earlier in this thread but if there were no 3 point shot he would master his turn around jumper which is already lethal.

Shaun Livingston game would be invaluable.

Durant would still be a beast.

shyt even David West would have more value at his old age.

The Warriors wouldn't be as dominant as today but they would still be contenders in my opinion.

No doubt they would still be a elite team but what makes the warriors and the splash bros who they are is those 3s can turn a close game into a blowout quickly. And the numbers are in there favor, with no 3 a big element of there game is gone.

 

[Malta]

No they wouldn't ...you would still have to guard the Steph & Klays of the game.

The Warriors made 43 more threes than the Grizz in their series, 7 per game difference.
The year before that the Thunder made 25 more threes, game 7 the Thunder were 11-19 from three, the Grizz were 5-17.
The year before that the Spurs used the threat of the three to dismantle them.
The year before that the Clippers beat them in 7, having made 19 more threes and in game 7 the Grizz didn't make a single three.
The year before that the Thunder beat them in 7 and made 19 more threes in the series.

We're talking about a team that won 50+ games while being one of the worst three point shooting teams in the league, and you can point to the lack of 3 point shooting as the reason they've lost several series. Without the three point shot they would have won a few titles, they were built with the old rules in mind and it showed when they kept coming up short vs teams that could shoot.



This years Jazz team would be a serious threat to win the title without a 3 line, because Gobert's defense gets that much better when he doesn't need to respect dudes taking 23 foot 2 pointers.

 

[AkaDemiK]

Then the Warriors would make more 2 pointers than every team. nikkas would just earn one less point. nikkas will still defend them the same. I honestly don't see much change other than teams that bang inside won't have to be worried about being blown out by 3 point teams. I still see the warriors n Rockets shooting more than other teams. They just won't earn that extra point. Their shooting percentage won't be the same obviously but shooters will shoot beloveds.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

The Warriors made 43 more threes than the Grizz in their series, 7 per game difference.
The year before that the Thunder made 25 more threes, game 7 the Thunder were 11-19 from three, the Grizz were 5-17.
The year before that the Spurs used the threat of the three to dismantle them.
The year before that the Clippers beat them in 7, having made 19 more threes and in game 7 the Grizz didn't make a single three.
The year before that the Thunder beat them in 7 and made 19 more threes in the series.

We're talking about a team that won 50+ games while being one of the worst three point shooting teams in the league, and you can point to the lack of 3 point shooting as the reason they've lost several series.



This years Jazz team would be a serious threat to win the title without a 3 line, because Gobert's defense gets that much better when he doesn't need to respect dudes taking 23 foot 2 pointers.

I've been saying it for a while now, but if the grizzlies came along 15-25 years earlier, they would have at least one title

 

[Malta]

I've been saying it for a while now, but if the grizzlies came along 15-25 years earlier, they would have at least one title

Definitely, the year they won 56 games they were the worst three point shooting team in the league in terms of makes, two years ago when they won 55 games they were 29th in the league and took the Warriors to 6.

No three point shooting and they win the title in 2014-2015 without question.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

Definitely, the year they won 56 games they were the worst three point shooting team in the league in terms of makes, two years ago when they won 55 games they were 29th in the league and took the Warriors to 6.

No three point shooting and they win the title in 2014-2015 without question.

I was thinking specifically that if the 2012-13 team played in 2002-03 that they likely win the title.

 

[Malta]

Then the Warriors would make more 2 pointers than every team. nikkas would just earn one less point. nikkas will still defend them the same. I honestly don't see much change other than teams that bang inside won't have to be worried about being blown out by 3 point teams. I still see the warriors n Rockets shooting more than other teams. They just won't earn that extra point. Their shooting percentage won't be the same obviously but shooters will shoot beloveds.

What would happen with the Warriors is that teams wouldn't press them as much when they're away from the basket, they make a lot of their 2 pointers now because teams are overplaying them at the 3 line and then get into scramble mode trying to recover out to shooters. If there's no three point line you play them softer the further out they are, and math says let them take as many long 2s as they want, just protect the lane. The Warriors would need to move the ball more, and unlike the Spurs from a few years ago they don't have a post threat to take up the slack for the lack of shooting. You remove the 3 line and their entire dynamic changes and they aren't that much of a threat.

 

[I AM WARHOL]

So shooting would just cease to matter without a 3 point line? I'm not buying it. Same players would be great. They'd just have to adjust

 

[Bay Area]

What would happen with the Warriors is that teams wouldn't press them as much when they're away from the basket, they make a lot of their 2 pointers now because teams are overplaying them at the 3 line and then get into scramble mode trying to recover out to shooters. If there's no three point line you play them softer the further out they are, and math says let them take as many long 2s as they want, just protect the lane. The Warriors would need to move the ball more, and unlike the Spurs from a few years ago they don't have a post threat to take up the slack for the lack of shooting. You remove the 3 line and their entire dynamic changes and they aren't that much of a threat.

Im not gonna front like KD is Tim Duncan or Hakeem in the post but you'd have to think he would refine his post moves.

I think we would be seeing KD, Livingston and Klay backing people down all game. Mcgee would still be a lob threat.

The Grizzlies would be a problem but could the Jazz really outscore the Warriors even with Goberts presence in the paint? Who is gonna score enough points for them on the other end?